Raymond Williams' "Culture is Ordinary" (Summary)

 

Culture, fundamentally, is ordinary; it's the bedrock of every human society. Each society crafts its own customs, pursues its own aims, and instils life with its own significance. Through institutions, arts, and learning, these societies articulate their essence. Building a society entails the discovery of shared meanings and objectives, a process perpetually evolving through discourse, experience, and encounters, etched into the fabric of the land itself.

 

The evolution of a society is twofold: collective growth molded by communal endeavors, and the continuous reshaping within each individual's consciousness. The formation of an individual psyche begins with the gradual assimilation of societal shapes, purposes, and meanings, enabling work, observation, and communication. Subsequently, it progresses through the crucible of experience, fostering fresh insights, comparisons, and interpretations.

 

A culture embodies dual facets: the established conventions and directives ingrained in its members, and the emergent insights and interpretations constantly proffered and evaluated. These dynamics constitute the essence of human societies and minds, unveiling culture as a blend of tradition and innovation, commonplace conventions and unique personal significances.

 

The term "culture" encompasses both the holistic ethos of a way of life—the shared meanings—and the realms of artistic expression and intellectual inquiry—the avenues of discovery and creativity. While some may restrict its usage to one aspect or the other, I advocate for a holistic view, acknowledging the symbiosis between the mundane and the extraordinary, the communal and the individual. My inquiries into our culture probe not just collective objectives, but also delve into the depths of personal significance. Culture, in essence, is the cornerstone of societies and the essence of individual minds, ubiquitous yet profoundly personal.

 

Culture is an intricate tapestry woven from myriad threads of experience and expression.

 

The debasement of language mirrors a broader societal trend, where technical proficiency supersedes ethical considerations, and material gain eclipses genuine human connection. Former champions of culture now peddle their talents in the service of crass commercialism, forsaking their moral compass for a taste of fleeting success. This erosion of values, epitomized by the proliferation of derogatory jargon, poses a grave threat to our collective well-being.  The pursuit of knowledge, the appreciation of art, the desire to do good—these are not affected by passing fads or hollow rhetoric. They are timeless pursuits, intrinsic to the human experience. Culture, arises organically from shared meanings and individual experiences, defying attempts at imposition or prediction.

 

To attempt to mold culture according to ideological dictates is a futile endeavor, destined to yield disillusionment and stagnation. A genuine culture emerges from the lived experiences of a diverse populace, constantly evolving in ways beyond our foresight or control. Thus, any attempt to force-fit culture into predefined molds is not only futile but also counterproductive.

 

In contrast to the Marxist perspective, Leavis offers a nuanced critique of English culture, rooted in a profound understanding of the intricate relationship between art and experience. While his insights into the erosion of traditional values resonate with many, his diagnosis overlooks certain realities. While it's undeniable that industrialization has ushered in profound societal changes, it's equally crucial to acknowledge the tangible benefits it has conferred upon society.

 

These advancements, emerged a cultural malaise characterized by the proliferation of cheap entertainment and superficiality. While one may be tempted to attribute this decline to the same forces driving industrialization, such simplistic correlations fail to capture the complexity of cultural evolution. The central challenge facing our society lies in harnessing our newfound resources to cultivate a vibrant and inclusive cultural landscape, one that reflects the richness of our collective experiences and aspirations. Before embarking on this endeavor, however, we must liberate ourselves from the shackles of ideological dogma and embrace the fluidity and dynamism inherent in cultural expression.

2

The proposition that economic progress necessitates ugliness is easily debunked. While it's undeniable that industrialization brought forth environmental challenges such as pollution and overcrowding, technological advancements now offer practical solutions to mitigate these issues. New sources of power, improved production methods, and better infrastructure can indeed restore cleanliness and aesthetic appeal to our surroundings, without compromising on economic growth. Any persisting ugliness can be attributed to human shortcomings like ignorance, apathy, or inefficiency, rather than inherent features of progress.

 

Williams identifies three false equations

The first false equation posits a direct correlation between popular education and the proliferation of a commercialized culture. However, this oversimplified view fails to account for the complexity of societal dynamics. Williams contends that ordinary people do not inherently possess low or trivial tastes and habits. The notion of "the masses" is a flawed construct stemming from industrialization's breakdown of traditional social structures and the subsequent massification of society. The commercialization of culture arose not from popular education but from the chaos of industrialization and the exploitation of mass communication techniques by those in power. The historical myth linking popular education with cultural decline perpetuated by figures like Northcliffe only serves to distort our understanding of cultural evolution.

 

The second false equation suggests that the prevalence of low-quality popular culture reflects the essential quality of life for its consumers. While it's easy to compile a catalog of superficial and degrading cultural artifacts, such representations fail to capture the richness and complexity of people's lives. Despite consuming what some may deem as "bad culture," individuals often exhibit fine sensibilities and discerning tastes in their personal interactions and experiences. This discrepancy between perceived cultural quality and personal lived experiences underscores the need for a new framework to understand the relationship between culture and society.

 

Finally, the false analogy comparing bad culture to bad money fails to hold up under scrutiny. While there may be an increase in the availability of low-quality cultural products, this does not necessarily diminish the consumption of high-quality cultural offerings. In fact, the opposite may be true, as evidenced by the growing audience for good literature, music, and visual art. Rather than succumbing to alarmist narratives, we must recognize that culture is expanding, and all its elements are evolving in tandem. This nuanced understanding will enable us to address pertinent social and economic challenges while fostering a more inclusive and vibrant cultural landscape.

However, Williams’ aim extends beyond merely restructuring access to specific types of education; it encompasses a fundamental reevaluation of educational content, which is arguably even more crucial. Our cultural seriousness will be tested by our ability to redesign syllabuses to be fully relevant and under our control. Willams envisions a collaborative effort to achieve this goal, as we have the capacity to create a truly 21st-century curriculum that reflects our diverse society's needs and aspirations. This transformation should not merely involve incorporating more technology but rather providing a comprehensive liberal education for all members of our society, followed by specialized training tailored to individuals' career aspirations. By grounding our specializations in a common cultural foundation, we can foster cohesion and prevent cultural polarization, which is becoming increasingly evident.

 

We spend millions on advertising while comparatively little is allocated to cultural enrichment and lifelong learning. This skewed prioritization reflects the dominance of consumerism in our society, where profit-driven motives often outweigh cultural and intellectual pursuits. We must reverse this trend by reallocating resources to support the arts and adult education initiatives. However, this investment should not be motivated solely by economic considerations but rather by a genuine commitment to enriching our collective cultural heritage.

 

The financial viability of mass cultural institutions relies on advertising revenue, which perpetuates a cycle of consumerism and commercialization. I advocate for a reevaluation of this model, wherein cultural institutions receive adequate funding without relying on advertising revenue. In a socialist economy, pseudo-advertising would become obsolete, and the focus would shift towards providing genuine cultural enrichment. This transition will undoubtedly pose challenges, but it's imperative that we explore alternative funding mechanisms to ensure the autonomy and diversity of our cultural landscape. Ultimately, my wishes reflect a broader commitment to democratizing culture and education, empowering ordinary people to shape their collective destiny and fostering a society where cultural enrichment is valued as a common good.